ABHISHEK RANJAN Vs. ANJALI VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent no. 1. IA. No. 10016 of 2016 was filed for condonation of delay of 271 days in filing the present appeal.

(2.) Notices were issued to both the respondents under ordinary process as well as registered cover in the limitation matter vide order dtd. 4/10/2018. Respondent no. 1 appeared through her counsel whereas notices on respondent no. 2 was served through his mother. Considering the nature of issue involved in the present Miscellaneous Appeal, the notice issued to the respondent no. 2 was treated as validly served vide order dtd. 1/2/2019 and by order dtd. 8/2/2019, the delay of 271 days in filing the appeal was condoned.

(3.) The sole appellant Abhishek Ranjan being the husband of the respondent no. 1 Anjali Verma, has assailed the order dtd. 23/2/2016 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jehanabad whereby the Matrimonial Case No. 151 of 2014, filed by the appellant for dissolution of marriage with respondent no. 1 on the ground of cruelty and adultery, has been dismissed due to non appearance of the appellant during conciliatory settlement proceeding undertaken by the learned Court under Sec. 23 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and under Sec. 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the Family Courts Act).In order to appreciate the issue involved in the present Miscellaneous Appeal, the question whether a matrimonial case can be dismissed due to non-appearance of the husband during conciliatory proceeding, it is relevant to analyze the factual aspect of the matter.